Social experiment gone awry: Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Speech, a Terrorist Threat or A Bad Idea

Dmitriy Andreychenko carrying a firearm into a Walmart was arrested in Springfield, Missouri, on August 8, 2018 prompting discussions about open carry laws. Andreychenko told police he didn’t think it would be a big deal, "This is Missouri, I understand if we were somewhere else like New York or California, people would freak out.

"I wanted to know if that Walmart honored the 2nd amendment," said Andreychenko to Springfield police.

"I wanted to know if that Walmart honored the 2nd amendment," said Dmitriy Andreychenko to local police after walking into a Springfield, Missouri, store carrying a tactical riffle, a hand gun, and over 100 rounds of ammunition.

[CBS intro]

While there are those that feel Andreychenko did some thing wrong, there are most likely just as many who feel he was simply exercising his right to bear arms – after all, it is legal to carry firearms in Missouri as long as you are legally permitted. The comment section of a Newsweek article illustrates key points in this debate.

One commenter handled FoxFree stated, “Law abiding citizens need to have the courage to go shopping without carrying a rifle on them.” In response, GoldRadio typed, “Incorrect. Law abiding citizens shouldn't fear what other people will think or do when openly displaying a firearm on their person.”

Whatever the case here, a panic was obviously caused.

[Lieutenant Mike Lucas]

So whose responsibility is it when someone’s actions causes people to “think or do” fearful behaviors such as panic? GoldenRadio even suggests that it was the store manager who actually incited the panic by pulling the fire alarm – and that the manager should be charged with panicking everyone. These things being said, at first glance this may appear to be all about the 2nd Amendment, but there appears to be 1st Amendment issues here as well. This is evidenced by the prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson’s statement where he refers to the declaration by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk vs United States where Holmes condemned actions such as shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing panic – saying that such actions were not Constitutionally protected. What does this have to do with free speech? Well consider the fact that he was recording it on his phone and has openly admitted that he was conducting a social experiment – almost as if he planned to communicate something somewhere about his strong feelings for the Second Amendment.

But anyway, what he has been charged with is making a terrorist threat. This requires that he mush have initiated an implied threat. Springfield Attorney Scott Pierson went on the local news to explain the legal complications of this.

[KY3] tough to define

[Lieutenant Mike Lucas] had capability to cause harm, was not here peacefully

But Peirson points out that the scare was most likely related to timing of the quote “social experiment” being so closely following the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton.

[KY3] But because of those things…..fearful

With such strong support for the 2nd Amendment in the United States, we tend to want to have good guys with guns. I am referring of course to the often heard argument that a good guy with a gun is the only way to deter a bad guy with a gun. Going back to the Newsweek comments, FoxFree makes a comment about open carry. “That's the problem with open carry..........you can't tell the difference between the good guys and the bad guys.” GoldRadio replies, “Here is a hint on how to tell a good guy from a bad guy, good guys with guns aren't shooting other people for no reason.”

Andreychenko certainly wasn’t shooting anyone. He even tried to peacefully walk out when the fire alarm went off, until he was ironically detained by another good guy with a weapon – an off duty firefighter. A CBN article, even uses these good guy vs bad guy terms. The headline states ,” Good Guy With Gun Stops Bad Guy With Gun in Walmart: 'He's Lucky He's Alive'

However the argument for open carry also supports Andreychenko’s behaviors. It could be argued that a good guy with a tactical weapon could have neutralized the recent mass shooters and saved lives. OrangePlanet makes such a case on the Newsweek website. “the people dead in the El Paso Walmart would sure have loved this guy to be in that store to gun down the real shooter.”

First and 2nd Amendment rights are fundamental to the American way of life. But you have to admit that the timing was pretty bad for this “social experiment” being just days after a couple of horrific shootings, where one of them actually took place in a Walmart with similar weapons. Andreychenko’s wife, Angelice, said, “It was not a smart idea.”

[ky3 _2] Timing was so bad.

Yet there are those who feel that these “social experiments” are there to help spread the word about 2nd Amendment rights, as OrangePlanet states, “And experiment can be looked in a positive way... is it maybe better to train managers and firefighters, to try to recognise if the chances are not danger.....and dimply ask: " Hey buddy, are you going to kill someone here?"” So does the responsibility for the panic lie with the crowd in Justice Holme’s metaphorical theater where “fire” is yelled? Or with the person doing the yelling. It appears that Andreychenko didn’t even consider how people would react. His attorney feels that it was just poor judgement, not a terrorist threat.

[ky 3]

Time will tell, as this situation is open to interpretation, and I am sure that a lot more will be said of this.

Conclusion